Chapter 13 again ...
Jeffrey Watts
watts at jayhawks.net
Sat Jul 15 11:02:23 PDT 2000
On Fri, 14 Jul 2000, Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
> Having been advised (by private email) that the rpm thing was a FAQ,
> I've skimmed the archives, and the only thing I could find near what I
> was bothered about was "standardising the install package", a two-mail
> thread in September 1998. (The easily accessible archives don't go
> much further back.)
Look at the thread called "RFC", put forward by Robert Current in March of
this year on lsb-discuss.
Also look for the thread called "Package System specification" by David
Cantrell in the April lsb-spec archives.
There's a lot of good discussion in those threads.
> And it doesn't matter a damn whether my distro is LSB compliant, if my
> security manager demands that all sensitive packages are compiled from
> source then my *installation* CANNOT be LSB compliant :-(
I'm not sure what you are driving at about this. The LSB is NOT concerned
about whether or not your _installation_ is LSB-compliant, it's concerned
about whether your _distribution_ is LSB compliant.
And, just because your security manager demands source compilation doesn't
mean that you can't use LSB-compliant packages. You can always take the
source RPM and recompile it. Then you have a RPM that's also "compiled
from source".
J.
o-----------------------------------o
| Jeffrey Watts |
| watts at jayhawks.net o-----------------------------------------o
| Systems Programmer | "The assertion that 'all men are |
| Network Systems Management | created equal' was of no practical use |
| Sprint Communications | in effecting our separation from Great |
o----------------------------| Britain and it was placed in the |
| Declaration not for that, but for |
| future use." |
| -- Abraham Lincoln |
o-----------------------------------------o
More information about the lsb-discuss
mailing list